When Privacy is on the Menu, But You Order off the Menu...

"Vicarious goal fulfillment." 

You may not have heard of this phrase, but you may unknowingly be guilty of doing it. Here is the idea behind the term: In a recent New York Times article, we learned why otherwise healthy-eating people sometimes take a very unhealthy u-turn on their diet. The psychology of why this occurs struck me that this kind of similar self-defeating behavior in eating, can also make its way into privacy-related decisions. 

More so than ever before, restaurants and other venues have begun to add healthy food options to supplement their classically unhealthy offerings. The thought is that making nutritious alternatives more available will lead customers to select the superior food choices. However, a number of studies have shown that merely having but one healthy food option on a menu of unhealthy choices cause people to both select the least healthiest option on the menu, and yet feel still like they have fulfilled their goal of healthy eating - even if they didn't choose the health option. And, ironically, the study goes on to say, this consequence is strongest for people with a high-degree of self-control. That is, people who should know better.

Think this topic can't possibly relate to privacy? The parallels are striking. Think about how the mere presence of the privacy policy on a mobile app you use on your phone or tablet comforts, or how the policy on the website you visit gives you a false sense of security that the company has a privacy policy to begin with, and that they actually honor the actions outlined in that policy. I have written about this before, especially where we read that consumers outspokenly demand high levels of privacy and strict adherence by businesses to the use of the customer data they collect, yet their behavior in many cases blatantly contradicts what say they want. (Trade your password for a bar of chocolate anyone?)

Just like sex sells, so do the unhealthy food selections on most menus, even if healthier options exist side-by-side. The restaurants say that they only offer the people what they want, and it is not their dominion to police people’s eating habits or modify bad habits. It is still a free country, yes?

So why shouldn’t we take the same tact with companies, browsers, applications or services that simply give the people what they want – entertainment, free access, little or no costs apps, etc. – and their privacy be damned? Does the notion of privacy hold more currency than a person’s health? As long as there is no unfair or deceptive practices occurring, and there is full disclosure on what is being done with the data, why shouldn’t people be allowed to act in a manner that is not in their best self-interest? We do it every day with food, tobacco, alcohol and spandex already. Should privacy be a loftier goal? If it is, then it should be achieved directly, and not vicariously. Like seeing a Cobb salad on the menu, but ordering the Double-Double Bacon Cheeseburger.